Determine whether a ContextCut license is Free or Pro by validating the provided license key, so you know which features are available before pruning code context.
Checks ContextCut license tier status (Free vs Pro).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| license_key | No | Optional explicit license key to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Checks' conveys a read-only operation, which signals non-destructive behavior. It does not detail side effects, auth, or rate limits, which are likely not relevant for this simple status check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and expected output with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies the input (via schema) and the semantic output (Free vs Pro). No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents license_key (optional, with description), so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('ContextCut license tier status') and specifies the output categories (Free vs Pro), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like prune_code_context and get_savings_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool – it is for checking license tier. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and siblings are unrelated, so the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.